Since the violence broke out last week between Russian and Georgian military forces, pundits and media figures have been trying to determine how the conflict will affect the U.S. presidential election. Many in the media, however, have blindly asserted — seemingly without examining any evidence — that the war in Georgia helps Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Some recent examples:
– Jill Zuckman, Chicago Tribune: “It’s just sort of a perfect thing for him.”
– Jeff Birnbaum, Washington Post: “This is McCain’s advantage here, advantage McCain. This is right in his sweet spot in foreign policy national security.”
– Mark Halperin, Time Magazine: “I think McCain benefits…this is good politically for John McCain”
Watch the compilation:
Halperin hinted at why many in the media think the Georgia-Russia conflict is a winner for McCain, becuase it “allows him to talk tough on foreign policy.”
But as Josh Marshall notes, “watching John McCain speak about the Georgian crisis […] should deeply worry anyone interested in a sane US foreign policy,” suggesting that a President McCain would have pushed the U.S. closer to war during this particular crisis: “People need to wake up and get a look of the preview he’s giving us of a McCain presidency.” Some reasons to be worried:
– Group of 8: McCain wants to kick Russia out of the G8 [base ']Äî a plan he reiterated just yesterday and one that a “senior U.S. official” recently called “impossible” and “just a dumb thing.”
– League of Democracies: McCain has cited Russian “behavior” as justification to create a “League of Democracies” [base ']Äî a radical plan with a “hidden agenda” to “kill the United Nations” and one that has been “greeted with alarm by some Republican supporters and wariness by important U.S. allies.”
– Trusted Broker: The fact that McCain’s top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has spent a number of years lobbying on behalf of Georgia which raises some questions about whether McCain would serve as an honest broker in the Russia-Georgia conflict.
So it seems that for the media, McCain’s “tough talk” and thus predisposition for war is a political benefit.
"In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to 3 billion dollars in new giveaways to Big Oil - a terrible policy that John McCain opposed. The truth is Barack Obama's plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security and small businesses," said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for McCain.
Wow! So, this is "Straight Talk." Where "lockstep" voting means "half the time." Oh, I'm sorry! "NEARLY" half the time! Since the McCain camp started in with their "Celebrity" ads, I had worried that none of them had been to the movies since Titanic and Wayne's World were in the theaters. But this memo is clear evidence that Bounds, at least, has seen Anchorman.
Brian Fantana: [about Veronica] I'll give this little cookie an hour before we're doing the no-pants dance. Time to musk up.
[opens cologne cabinet]
Ron Burgundy: Wow. Never ceases to amaze me. What cologne you gonna go with? London Gentleman, or wait. No, no, no. Hold on. Blackbeard's Delight.
Brian Fantana: No, she gets a special cologne... It's called Sex Panther by Odeon. It's illegal in nine countries... Yep, it's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good.
Ron Burgundy: It's quite pungent.
Brian Fantana: Oh yeah.
Ron Burgundy: It's a formidable scent... It stings the nostrils. In a good way.
Brian Fantana: Yep.
Ron Burgundy: Brian, I'm gonna be honest with you, that smells like pure gasoline.
Brian Fantana: They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
[cheesy grin]
Ron Burgundy: That doesn't make sense.
Brian Fantana: Well... Let's go see if we can make this little kitty purr.
This afternoon, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds hit back, "The truth is National Journal, a non-partisan publication, ranked Barack Obama as the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate. John McCain simply said that he didn't know whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist, and noted that national rankings have rated him as more liberal than the only self-proclaimed socialist in the Senate. It's up to Barack Obama to explain his extreme record."
So, where does this leave President Bush? Is it up to Bush to explain 40% of his extreme record? Is he nearly half of the most liberal Senator? Is he almost in lockstep with socialism?
